R v AB

In a sentence appeal involving multiple sexual offences, the relevant guideline table must be selected by the conduct proved: where an offence of causing sexual activity without consent involves no penetration, its starting point is two years rather than eight. The court should preserve totality by selecting a lead offence, using concurrent sentences for related offending and consecutive sentences where later offending is materially distinct. Correcting a guideline error does not require an inadequate overall sentence; the appellate court may adjust the lead sentence to reflect total criminality after applying guilty-plea credit. An extended sentence and its extension period are not manifestly excessive where serious sexual offending and strong evidence of continuing danger justify the protection required.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against his stepdaughter, committed over a two-year period. The Crown Court at Southampton imposed an extended sentence and concurrent sentences for most offences, with a consecutive sentence for a later incident involving threats and destruction of evidence.

With permission to appeal against sentence, the appellant initially argued that the total custodial term and extension period were manifestly excessive. During oral argument, he was permitted to add a ground that the judge had used the wrong guideline table for non-penetrative offences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. The central issues were the correction of that error, the application of totality, and whether the extension period was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to the stated extent. The court granted permission to add the late guideline ground because the sentencing judge had used the wrong starting point for the non-penetrative offences.
2. For an offence of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent where there was no penetration, the applicable starting point was two years, not eight years. An uplift to four years was justified for the particularly unpleasant circumstances of count 11 and for the repeated offending on counts 5 and 6. After the 25 per cent guilty-plea reduction, each sentence was three years.
3. It was good sentencing practice to select a lead offence reflecting the offending as a whole, impose concurrent sentences for the related offences, and impose a consecutive sentence for count 11 because it was later and materially distinct. The original increase from the rape starting point of 10 years to 12 years was modest and had respected totality. After correcting the guideline error, a merely arithmetical correction would have produced an inadequate sentence. The court therefore increased the custodial sentence on count 8 to 14 years before credit, producing an overall custodial period of 18 years before credit and 13½ years after credit.
4. The challenge to the extension period failed. The offending was of the most serious type, continued over a significant period, and the pre-sentence report indicated a high risk of serious future harm to pubescent girls. There was no evidence that the risk would diminish within a shorter period, so the protection required was not manifestly excessive.
5. The formal order varied count 8 to an extended sentence stated as 18½ years, comprising a custodial sentence of 10½ years and an extension period of two years. Counts 5 and 6 were reduced to three years concurrently with count 8, and count 11 was reduced to three years consecutively. The remaining sentences were unaltered.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 13 August 2024, the appeal against sentence was allowed to the stated extent and the sentences were varied: [2024] EWCA Crim 1028.
2. Crown Court at Southampton — On 4 January 2024, the appellant was sentenced after pleading guilty to multiple sexual offences. An extended sentence was imposed for count 8, with a consecutive determinate sentence for count 11 and concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.